Those of us old enough to remember the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 and
1974 remember that the energy crisis then was as real as the gas lines
that stretched for blocks. That crisis made an impression on both the government
and the American public. The government’s response was swift and harsh,
starting with President Nixon’s wage and price controls and evolving into
President Carter’s call for conservation, winterizing our homes and tightening
our belts.

Fast forward to 2001 and look for evidence of an energy crisis now.
Certainly the high prices for home heating oil in the Northeast and the
rolling blackouts experienced by Californians are real enough. But what
actually constitutes an “energy crisis,” and what is our responsibility
in America’s growing demand for energy?

The United States accounts for approximately 3 percent of the world’s
energy resources, yet consumes a quarter of them. We continue to import
a large percentage of our oil, approximately 56 percent, up from 40 percent
in the 1970s. Nuclear power constitutes approximately 8 percent of our
energy supply. Yet we are rich in energy fuels — oil, natural gas and coal.
So the “energy crisis” is not an economic one, but a philosophical one
of supply and demand. Do Americans deserve an unlimited energy supply on
demand? If so, what price are we willing to pay?

Our economy can only be strong if we have an abundant, reliable energy
supply, but having such a supply requires tradeoffs that few people seem
willing to discuss. Whether the reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) would last six months or 60 years isn’t the real argument
for opening or continuing to protect these lands. The real question is
whether the economic benefits from developing them — the jobs that would
be created, the additional revenue realized by a few companies, native
peoples and the State of Alaska, and any additional oil — are worth the
sacrifice of the only remaining pristine Arctic ecosystem in the world.
Once the Arctic Refuge has been changed, there is no going back. Are we
really that desperate to drive SUVs? Are there other alternatives?

Those labeled “environmentalists” can’t have it all their way, either.
Certainly, many people are unwilling to sacrifice the unspoiled delicacy
of the Arctic Refuge in order to fill up their cars more often. But these
same people should be willing to take a hard look at the environmental
barricades that prevent the system we have from working better.

Take the high heating oil prices Northeast U.S. residents have been
paying. These prices were not the result of home heating oil shortages,
but rather of the cost of transporting the oil from where it was produced
to where it was consumed. There are not enough pipelines to carry oil to
the Northeast. This fact is primarily the result of citizens who, because
of concerns over safety and property values, have opposed siting pipelines
in their neighborhoods. Environmentalists are worried that pipelines would
damage the ecosystem if routed through natural habitats. Thus, pipelines
weren’t constructed and heating oil had to be trucked or shipped in through
eastern seaports. This resulted in higher prices.

Complicating the relatively simple picture of supply and demand are
the nuances of conservation and energy efficiency. Most attractive about
conservation and efficiency is that many of the benefits of reduced demand
can be realized almost immediately, unlike the long-term proposal of increasing
production. Improving the efficiency of old coal-fired power plants, as
an example, could solve a multitude of problems. The technology currently
used dates back to the 1950s, and modernizing this technology could improve
efficiency beyond its current 33 percent. More efficient burning would
reduce air emissions associated with energy production, reducing the release
of greenhouse gases, particulates and pollutants that cause acid rain.
This same thinking could be applied to the production of hydroelectricity,
often called “incremental hydropower.” Improving the efficiency of the
existing network of dams used to produce energy would circumvent the need
to build more and bigger dams. Embracing the appliance efficiency standards
for air conditioners could obviate the need to build dozens of the new
generating stations that the Vice President says are necessary. Properly
inflating automobile tires could save as much oil as is projected to lie
beneath the Arctic Refuge.

Evar Nering, professor emeritus at Arizona State University,
best illustrates the relationship between conservation and increasing demand
as a function of exponents. For example, if we have a 100-year reserve
of oil and consume it at our current rate, it would last 100 years. Increase
annual demand five percent per year, and that same reserve would only last
about 36 years. Say we drill for more oil and find a 1,000-year reserve.
Dr. Nering calculates that it would last only 79 years if we increase our
demand five percent per year. A 10,000-year reserve would last only 125
years with a similar demand. This simple set of calculations clearly illustrates
that increasing our supply of fuel through additional exploration and development,
while maintaining a steady, though moderate increase in demand, will never
supply all of the power we need. The answer is to decrease our demand.
Halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy
of the supply, no matter what size.

Conservation is a more difficult issue because it is related to lifestyle.
The American economy is not only the largest economy in the world, but
it also consumes the most energy per unit of gross domestic product. Our
economy constantly needs more energy, projected at an annual increase in
demand of 1.8 percent per year. Energy consumption is tied into safety,
comfort and health concerns. However, we make choices every day that disregard
conservation and waste energy. Studies by the University of Arizona have
shown that 16 percent of the energy that individuals use is "interruptible":
energy that we can do without for short periods of time without being inconvenienced.
But how much energy do we actually use that we don't need at all? We have
one of the lowest prices per gallon of gasoline in the world, so it is
easy for us to commute with a single person in the car, to make unnecessary
trips to the store and to drive vehicles that only get 10 miles per gallon.
Conservation is not a matter of "personal virtue," as Vice President Cheney
has been quoted saying. It is a matter of personal responsibility.

We need an energy policy to provide the framework for our choices as
a nation. At the same time, as individuals we need to take responsibility
and make choices that will contribute to the common good. A policy that
benefits the entire country is much like the challenges faced by parents
raising a teenager. The policy can't give the American people all that
they want whenever they want it. It should make us evaluate the short-term
and long-term consequences of our choices. It must guide our citizens,
lawmakers and industry leaders toward making wise, informed decisions.
It should help us set priorities. It should allow us to evaluate whether
we are investing judiciously in energy research. An energy policy should
make us recognize that we live in a global community where our actions
ripple through a society to affect many other inhabitants of the planet.
There is a price for our choices. Let us make them wisely.

Makeig is this year's American Geological Institute Congressional
Science Fellow. Owner and president of Waste Science Inc., an environmental
consulting firm, she is taking a year to work on the staff of Rep. Rush
Holt (D-N.J.).

The views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect
those of AGI or of Rep. Holt.